What Is Imputed Income in Child Support Calculations?

When a parent earns far less than they could, Washington courts do not simply take that low number at face value. Instead, the court may calculate support based on what the parent should be earning. That practice is called imputing income, and it can dramatically change a support amount. This topic is part of Washington divorce, custody, and support law.

Imputed Income, In Plain Terms

Imputed income is earnings a court assigns to a parent who is not actually making that money but could be. The idea is simple and fair: a parent should not be able to shrink a child support obligation by choosing to earn less than their ability allows. Washington calculates support on an income-shares model, where both parents' incomes drive the number pulled from the economic table in chapter 26.19 RCW, so an artificially low income on one side distorts the whole calculation. Imputation corrects that distortion. Related guides cover How Do I Prove Income for Child Support Purposes? and How Do I Report Changes in Income for Child Support?.

When the Court Must Impute Income

This is not merely something a court may do. Washington law makes it mandatory in defined situations. Under RCW 26.19.071(6), the court shall impute income to a parent when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed. The key word is voluntary. Imputation targets a parent who is choosing to earn less, not one who genuinely cannot find or perform work.

The statute builds in protections for parents whose reduced earnings are not their fault. RCW 26.19.071(6) provides that a court shall not impute income to a parent who is gainfully employed on a full-time basis, unless the court finds the parent is voluntarily underemployed and purposely underemployed to reduce the child support obligation. It also states that income shall not be imputed for an unemployable parent, and that income shall not be imputed to a parent to the extent they are unemployed or significantly underemployed because of efforts to comply with court-ordered reunification under chapter 13.34 RCW. In short, a full-time worker doing their honest best is generally safe from imputation.

How the Court Decides Whether a Parent Is Voluntarily Underemployed

Determining whether reduced earnings are truly voluntary is a fact-intensive inquiry, and RCW 26.19.071(6) lays out what the court weighs. The court looks at the parent's assets, residence, employment and earnings history, job skills, educational attainment, literacy, health, age, criminal record, dependency court obligations and other employment barriers, record of seeking work, the local job market, the availability of employers willing to hire the parent, the prevailing earnings level in the local community, and any other relevant factors. This is why context matters so much. A skilled professional in Snohomish County who abruptly takes a minimum-wage job will be viewed very differently from a parent whose health or a genuine lack of local opportunities limits their earnings.

The Order of Priority for Setting the Number

Once a court decides imputation is warranted, it does not pick a figure out of thin air. RCW 26.19.071(6)(a) sets a specific order of priority for how much income to impute when there are no reliable records of the parent's actual earnings. The court works down the list in order.

First is full-time earnings at the parent's current rate of pay. If that is unavailable, the court moves to full-time earnings at the parent's historical rate of pay based on reliable information such as Employment Security Department data. Next comes full-time earnings at a past rate of pay where the information is incomplete or sporadic. The statute then provides for imputation at 32 hours per week at minimum wage for parents in certain transitional situations, such as those recently coming off public assistance or recently released from incarceration, and that 32-hour figure is a rebuttable presumption. Below that is full-time minimum wage for a parent with a recent history of minimum-wage earnings or no significant earnings history. Finally, if none of the earlier categories fit, the court may use the median net monthly income of year-round full-time workers from United States census data. This tiered structure means the imputed number is anchored to the best available evidence of what the parent realistically could earn.

A Special Rule for Parents Still in High School

The statute recognizes that a teenage parent still in school is a different case. RCW 26.19.071(6)(b) directs the court to consider the totality of both parents' circumstances when a parent is enrolled in high school full-time, and if such a parent is found voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, income is imputed at 20 hours per week at minimum wage, again as a rebuttable presumption. It is a narrower, gentler standard suited to a parent whose primary job is finishing their education.

Why This Matters for Both Parents

Imputed income cuts both ways. A parent receiving support has an interest in ensuring the other parent is not artificially depressing their income to pay less. A parent paying support has an interest in showing that any reduction in their earnings was involuntary, well documented, and reasonable given the local job market and their own circumstances. Because the analysis turns on so many individualized factors, how the story is presented to the court can be as important as the underlying facts.

If you are worried the other parent is hiding behind a low income, or you are being accused of underemployment you cannot control, the details matter enormously. The Law Office of Chad Foster helps Snohomish County parents present the earnings picture accurately and argue imputation the right way. Reach out to discuss how the income factors apply to your situation before the numbers are locked in.